How cool is this- Ruger M1917!

Status
Not open for further replies.
buck460XVR said:
Very nice revolver. Lanyard, lanyard ring and it's position is kinda moot, as the gun itself, overall, bears very little resemblance to the original M1917. Probably could have been called a SR1917. The real value of a custom gun like this is basically the idea of having a one of a kind. I'd hope those stocks would handle the recoil of the .50 A.E. better than the originals.
Click to expand...
Well, dont forget Colt and S&W BOTH made M1917 revolvers and they dont look much alike. I think of this Ruger more like a "what if Ruger were around back then" concept rather than a replica of their competitors pistols.:)
 
Last edited:
Bowen stopped by my LGS (of course when I wasn't there) and my bud said he's a super cool/nice guy.
I'd like to have one of his .256 win K frames.
 
NIGHTLORD40K said:
I think of this Ruger more like a "what if Ruger were around back then" concept rather than a replica of their competitors pistols.:)
Click to expand...

Oh...I agree, kinda why I thought the SR1917 moniker would be more appropriate. Kinda like the name stamped on the barrel of my M1917 rifle..."U.S. Model of 1917, Eddtstone".
 
Would it be legal to relocate the serial number on the frame and then remove the old one to fit a properly centered lanyard ring?
 
CraigC said:
Absolutely not. It's illegal to modify, alter or obliterate a serial number in any way, shape, form or fashion.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that this is true.
And yet the"number" would still exist on the frame, without having been modified, altered, or obliterated as a number identifier, and would still be precisely stamped into the steel and as clearly readable as before.
It's probably possible, but would require Federal documentation and permission, as has been mentioned, to prove that the actual number remains unchanged.

In any case, the army would have bought tons of these, had they been available back in the day.
 
Last edited:
It is absolutely true. You don't understand what I'm saying. It doesn't matter if you stamp the number all over the frame. If you modify the original serial number stamping, you have committed a felony. It used to be possible to get the ATF to either issue a new serial number or get permission to move it but it is exceedingly difficult (if not impossible) today. A whole lot more trouble than it's worth for something as trivial as a lanyard ring.
 
In the spirit of the original post, I like it and thinks its really cool. If I had disposable income I'd buy one or have one built. Its a nod toward two great revolvers that helped defend this country. Of course, with a modern twist. I still shoot my S&W 1917 and wonder about its history.
 
.455_Hunter said:
Wow! Tough crowd!

I guess anything that has "1917" in it's name has to be straight mil-spec to the point it would confuse a WWI armorer.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes, it does. There are those of us who bemoan the dearth of affordable, unmolested, mil-surp guns from the Great War. So many 03s hit the US market and most of them were cut up, chopped up, and turned into "sporterized" hunting rifles (many of them were actually very well done) that now, that is what dominates the market. Supply (or lack thereof) of guns in original condition has driven the prices up on the guns that escaped.

As for the revolver in question...nothing 1917 about it.
 
The gun in question is not meant to be a 1917 replica, any more than a Colt 1917 is a replica of a S&W 1917. It is simply a representation of what a Ruger version of a 1917 might look like. Something they never offered in a factory configuration. So to judge as "it doesn't look like a 1917" is to be a wee bit short-sighted to the point of missing the point. A lot of work went into that thing and a lot of it is subtle but the modifications to the barrel and topstrap are extensive. Not to mention that it's a five-shot .50AE. I assure you that more thought and engineering went into it than any of the original 1917's.
 
CraigC said:
The gun in question is not meant to be a 1917 replica, any more than a Colt 1917 is a replica of a S&W 1917. It is simply a representation of what a Ruger version of a 1917 might look like. Something they never offered in a factory configuration. So to judge as "it doesn't look like a 1917" is to be a wee bit short-sighted to the point of missing the point. A lot of work went into that thing and a lot of it is subtle but the modifications to the barrel and topstrap are extensive. Not to mention that it's a five-shot .50AE. I assure you that more thought and engineering went into it than any of the original 1917's.
Click to expand...
Well i like that Ruger, although why not go with 480 Ruger instead of 50AE.
 
They could've gone with anything from .357Mag to one of the rimmed .500's. I think part of the point of doing a .50AE is to keep in line with the rimless chambering but also do something different.
 
CraigC said:
It is absolutely true. You don't understand what I'm saying. It doesn't matter if you stamp the number all over the frame. If you modify the original serial number stamping, you have committed a felony. It used to be possible to get the ATF to either issue a new serial number or get permission to move it but it is exceedingly difficult (if not impossible) today. A whole lot more trouble than it's worth for something as trivial as a lanyard ring.
Click to expand...
That's the exact way VINs are dealt with on cars. You cannot alter that plate in any way.

Interesting is the fact that guns like my colt new navy have had their serials scrubbed and are now known in the "system" by their assembly numbers. It was bought legally through cabelas gun library
 
silvermane_1 said:
Well i like that Ruger, although why not go with 480 Ruger instead of 50AE.
Click to expand...
I'm also not sure the 480 was around when that gun was done, it's been on their website for years
ETA Did a Google search found one that sold at auction, stated original invoice was 2001 two years before the 480.
Plus like Craig said prolly wanted moon clips.
 
Last edited:
mavracer said:
I'm also not sure the 480 was around when that gun was done, it's been on their website for years
ETA Did a Google search found one that sold at auction, stated original invoice was 2001 two years before the 480.
Plus like Craig said prolly wanted moon clips.
Click to expand...

Bought my first .480 is 2001... :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

spencerhut
  • Locked
My "New" M1917 S&W
Replies
11
Views
695
Eightball
E
S
  • Locked
Bowen rear sight for Ruger SAs?
Replies
2
Views
630
Shake
S
J
  • Locked
Ruger Redhawk 4"
Replies
20
Views
4K
Cato the Younger
C
G
  • Locked
Colt .45 M1917
Replies
1
Views
288
rcmodel
R
W
  • Locked
Which would be better? Custom Ruger or Freedom Arms
Replies
11
Views
2K
farscott
F
Back
Top